Revision as of 04:08, 31 July 2011

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Questions from Newyorkbrad to Cirt

1. What changes if any have you made to your editing patterns and methods since the incidents discussed in the evidence presented in this case?

   A.

2. What specific commitments have you made regarding (e.g.) voluntary withdrawal from certain topic areas, when did you make those commitments, and to what extent have you kept them?

   A.

Questions from Newyorkbrad to Jayen466

1. Do any of Cirt's edits that you regard as seriously problematic post-date Cirt's commitments to withdraw from various topic areas?

   A. Yes. See ,
   See , .
   See , .
   According to Cla68, Cirt undertook last summer to refrain from editing Scientology BLPs, yet we had a few months later.
   Here, in January 2011, Cirt reverted the addition of sourced material as vandalism: .
   Here, also in January 2011, Cirt argued that Melton is an unreliable source; the man writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Scientology, and Cirt had cited the exact same source himself before: , .
   Slipping Werner Erhard onto the main page in February 2011: . (If there is any doubt that Erhard forms part of the Scientology topic area, see , where Cirt proposes prosecuting alleged meatpuppets using the ARBSCI remedies.) --JN466 02:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

2. Do any of Cirt's edits that you regard as seriously problematic, in your view, violate the commitments he made?

   A. Yes, unfortunately. Note .
   See , from December 2008, where Cirt assured us: "I really have left behind the edit warrior I used to be two years ago". Yet this, two years later, is edit-warring/tag-teaming, in order to retain a BLP of a disfavoured politician in a coatrack state: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Talk:Sharron_Angle/Archive_1#Scientology.
   A similar pattern of reverts seems to have occurred in Knight and Day, in June 2010: , , , , , , and others, in order to retain an unjustified characterisation of the film as a box office bomb.
   With the best will in the world, I do not see these actions as consistent with earlier undertakings. --JN466 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions from Cbrick77 to Jayen466

Questions from Cbrick77 to Jayen466

1. Why did you decide not to take the advice of User:SlimVirgin on his comment (third to last) here on the administrator's noticeboard?

   A. I did take SlimVirgin's advice and did not raise an RfC/U at that time. Three things happened soon after though that changed both my and SlimVirgin's mind.

   1. The first was this post by SlimVirgin on Cirt's talk page. Cirt had continued the behaviour he had promised her to curb, even while he was in conversation with her.
   2. On 23 June, it transpired through an arbcom leak that Cirt had not been entirely frank to me (on-wiki) and SlimVirgin (off-wiki) concerning his reasons for creating the Corbin Fisher article. As featured in the main page DYK section, the article was highly promotional. Cirt had stated to me and SlimVirgin that he had come to the article "organically", through his interest in another article. He eventually conceded (when SlimVirgin told him that she already knew it) that he had created the article at the personal suggestion of the company's legal counsel, Marc Randazza, a noted free-speech lawyer.
   3. The third was the "political activism" request for arbitration brought by User:Coren against Cirt. In his response to it, Cirt stated that he was currently assisting two family members in an acute health crisis and requested he be excused from participating in the case. He posted a further statement on 14 June saying that he would reduce his activity level in Misplaced Pages significantly. However, over the following two weeks, Cirt made 2,000 edits to Misplaced Pages. He attended to an FAC nomination he had initiated the previous week (June 6), and invited several editors to collaborate with him on new projects.

   For whatever reason, Cirt's statements, both to SlimVirgin and the arbitration committee, looked at variance with his actions. Cirt said he wanted to move to a new topic area, free speech, that is also closely related to Werner Erhard, Scientology and other such groups. Without an effective acknowledgement of existing problems, similar advocacy problems seemed likely to recur in future. SlimVirgin endorsed the RfC/U, and posted a view of her own. --JN466 04:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Do you believe a mutual interaction ban between Cirt and you and having disputes resolved through a third party would be beneficial in resolving some of these issues raised in this case?

   A.

Questions from Cbrick77 to Cirt

1. Do you believe a mutual interaction ban between Cirt and you and having disputes resolved through a third party would be beneficial in resolving some of these issues raised in this case?

   A.

2. In what ways, if any, have you altered your interactions with Jayen?

   A.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Off2riorob

Principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Point of order: Is Off2riorob a party?   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@WillBeback - yes your correct, I am not a party - I have moved to "others" - Thank you for pointing that out. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

2) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars. Similarly, undue weight should not be given to a particular aspect of a topic, to the detriment of a fair and balanced treatment of the topic as a whole.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Standard. Attempts to exclude highly reputable scholars disfavoured by Cirt have been a constant theme. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy of sourcing

3) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor certifies his or her good-faith belief that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes information contained in the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Misuse or misleading use of sources, intentional or otherwise, violates our policies requiring that article content be verifiable and prohibiting original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There have been multiple such misuses and misleading uses, and consistently in favour of a point of view opposed to those disfavoured. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Errors in editing

4) Editors are not expected to be perfect. It is completely understandable that a contributor may occasionally make a mistake, such as construing a source in a fashion that other editors ascertain is incorrect, or making an edit that too clearly reflects a partisan point of view. However, when an editor's contributions reflect a consistent pattern of errors such as slanted edits or mis-cited sources and violations of policies and guidelines, the situation is far more serious. This is especially so when the tendency of the errors and violations is uniformly in the direction of a particular point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As above. The direction of misuses and misrepresentations has been uniform. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing

5) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or repeatedly misusing sources to favor a particular view, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sensitivities of subject-matter

6) Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines regarding article content apply to all pages of the encyclopedia. No topics are placed off limits, and "political correctness" is not required as a condition of editing. Nevertheless, certain subject-matters—such as articles discussing specific racial, religious, and ethnic groups, and the members of these groups identified as such—are by their nature more sensitive than others. It is especially important that editors working in these areas adhere to site policies and guidelines and to good encyclopedic practices. These include neutral editing as well as scrupulous sourcing, especially of controversial or disputed claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A key point, especially with regard to the incest allegations against Erhard mentioned in evidence. Cirt could not reasonably have been unaware of the retractions; yet he disclaimed all knowledge of them, and the DYK ran without them. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. this is a good one to highlight. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bias and prejudice

7) An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Re Jayen466's comment, this and the next couple of paragraphs aren't actually "standard" in the sense of repeatedly used in committee decisions; they were new language (though hopefully not new community expectations) when I drafted them for the Noleander case. That doesn't mean they aren't also relevant here too, of course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Remedies for biased editing

8) Where an editor's contributions, over a significant period of time and after repeated expressions of concerns, are reasonably perceived by many users to reflect bias and prejudice against the members of a racial, religious, or ethnic group, appropriate remedies or restrictions should be imposed. This does not necessarily require a finding that the editor is actually biased and prejudiced against any group or that the editor consciously intended to edit inappropriately.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. we observe and possibly sanction actions not motivations. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

References to fellow editors

9) Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Principles. Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Focus of the dispute

1) The principal issue in this case concerns editing by Cirt (talk · contribs). Cirt’s editing has been the subject of several recent arbitration enforcement threads and a recent Request for arbitration by User:Coren. These culminated in a divisive RfC/U on June 27 2011. Because this discussion failed to reach a consensus, the allegations were extremely serious, the disagreement was polarizing the community, and other methods of dispute resolution did not appear likely to resolve the matter, the Arbitration Committee accepted the case for arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Accurate. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The focus by others on Jayen466 is misplaced. He's just been the most dogged about Cirt, who was not either a SPA in one topic area, or a banned user. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This statement is false as written according to the scope of the case. To quote: "The purpose of this case is to examine the conduct of each party...as well as any interpersonal conduct issues arising between the two parties. Submitted evidence should focus solely on the conduct of Cirt and Jayen466." The principle issue of this case is the editing and conduct of both Cirt and Jayen466. I suggest this finding of fact be edited to reflect the scope of the case. Chris (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The whole focus of the dispute between User:Cirt and User:Jayen is User:Cirt's serious and prolonged policy violations as laid out on the evidence page. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

While User:Cirt's pattern of editting is troubling and unbecoming of an administrator, there is more than simply his policy violations. As brought up in on an earlier disputehere, it seems that User:Jayen466 has an editing pattern with Cirt that is more than just coincidental. Their interpersonal reltions have also been less than friendly. I'm not saying Cirt doesn't need to be held accountable, but I've noticed that the rest of the scope--namely the interpersonal relations between the two parties--is lacking and should be addressed.

This may be so, but no evidence has been submitted in the evidence section regarding Jayen666 or his interactions with Cirt. - BorisG (talk) 03:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Underlying area of conflict

2) The underlying area of conflict is belief systems/new age religions/cults and associated articles like Scientology, Werner Erhard/Landmark Education, the Unification Church and politicians and other individuals linked to these belief systems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cirt

3) A substantial focus of User:Cirt's editing has been articles relating generally to Scientology, Werner Erhard/Landmark Education, the Unification Church. The articles have ranged over a wide range of topics, ranging from lists of prominent members, books about the movements and members, lawsuits involving them, and many others.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Articles about the groups' beliefs and their critics could be added; these have at times been poorly sourced, and almost always depart from NPOV, being either excessively positive (critics) or excessively negative. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Cirt's editing

4) User:Cirt's contributions to Misplaced Pages concerning these movements and individual members of these movements can reasonably be perceived as consistently reflecting negative views. There is a strong and persistent tendency to depict both individuals and movements in an unfavorable or mocking fashion. For example, Cirt's edits and articles often give undue weight to one particular aspect of a topic, and when they do, the undue weight is almost invariably placed so as to reflect poorly on the subjects of the article. Similarly, sources are often used appropriately, but when they are misused, it is typically in a fashion that treats them as negatively as possible. Cirt has used poor sources in doing so.

Politicians and other individuals opposed to these movements have been described as positively as possible, while others linked to these movements have been described as negatively as possible. Cirt has several times begun working on biographies of politicians or a related article shortly after they declared their intention to run for office or prior to an upcoming election.

This finding does not rely on any single edit or group of edits, or even any single article or group of articles, but on considering User:Cirt's body of contributions taken as a whole. This finding reflects Cirt's editing on Misplaced Pages, not of his intentions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. Non-neutral editing of politicians' bios in the run-up to elections has been a problem. The proposed remedy needs some copyediting -- the politicians favoured were not necessarily opposed to the groups concerned, but they were opposing another candidate believed by Anonymous to be too friendly to these groups. Negative coatracks were written on politicians like Sharron Angle and Santorum who are believed to be "in bed" with Scientology, or the Unification Church. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Off2riorob (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

yes. We have no idea of Cirt's actual mindset, only the results of actions taken in editing the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

User:Cirt is banned from editing WP:BLP articles about members of new religious movements (broadly construed)

1) That due to User:Cirt's serious and repeated violations of Misplaced Pages policies over a lengthy period of time (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) in WP:BLP articles about members of new religious movements, User:Cirt is banned from editing such articles. (broadly defined to include living people tangentially connected to a NRM}

Comment by Arbitrators:

I won't comment yet on any other aspects of the case (because the evidence isn't submitted and the parties haven't had a chance to respond to my questions, among other reasons), but I would find use of the undefined term "cult" in a finding or remedy somewhat problematic. Please suggest alternate wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Yes, as the problems seem to be recurring with systematic regularity and some of the BLP violations have been severe. This should not just extend to BLPs; the most significant BLP issues for example (linking to a self-published YouTube video asking viewers to take action against a named and presumably living individual alleged to be a likely sex offender, and prominent mention of incest allegations without mentioning that they were later retracted) occurred in Mace-Kingsley Ranch School and Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

As per NYB's comment I have altered the proposed remedy from "cults" to "new religious movements." Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

probably. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we drop the BLP and Members part and just say that Cirt is banned from edditing articles related to New Religious Movements. I see it as a loop hole Cirt could exploit that could jeapordize the quality of articles about dead members as well as articles on NRM that aren't BLP's. Chris (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cirt is banned from editing WP:BLP articles of politicians (broadly construed)

2) That due to User:Cirt's serious and repeated violations of Misplaced Pages policies over a lengthy period of time (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) in WP:BLP articles of politicians, User:Cirt is banned from editing such articles.(broadly defined to include related BLP content in non biographical articles, such as Campaign for "santorum" neologism}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes. Misplaced Pages must not remain a vehicle for this type of editing. It should be strongly discouraged. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

@Carrite: Agreed. I believe that is the intent of the proposed remedy; it refers to biographies of living people. --JN466 17:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

probably. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be emphasized here that what is being proposed is a ban on writing BLPs on politicians. Knowing as we all do that Cirt is one of the most brilliant and talented content-creators at WP (whether or not we agree with his focus or his every action), I can't help but hope that he takes up writing historical political biographies. There is a great need for work in this area. The topic ban needs to be more narrowly defined so that room is left for him to work. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Cirt is desysopped

3) That due to User:Cirt's serious and repeated violations of Misplaced Pages policies over a lengthy period of time (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) User:Cirt's standards of policy compliance and neutrality have fallen below the standards expected of users with advanced permissions and User:Cirt is desysopped of his WP:Admin status. Any request for re-sysopping would be via the community through the usual process of WP:RFA

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe, along with DGG, that this type of editing, in particular the BLPSPS violations, misrepresentation of sources and editing of politicians' bios, is a breach of trust. Most of the politicians' bios were only discovered after the relevant elections were over. Re Rocksanddirt's suggestion below, an important point to note is that Cirt would be an extremely unsuitable admin to handle AE matters even tangentially related to the topic areas concerned here. --JN466 03:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

tougher call. I would rather see Cirt spend the entire time this case/cases are open doing arbitration enforcement. The admins there always need more help with the challenges associated with contentious areas. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@JNN466 - That's one reason to do it. It's not a quiet corner working against POV pushing nutters, it's an actively watched page that needs admins to review and discuss and take action. If Cirt is unable to perform collaboratively with others there, that might be an important item to review as far as admin suitability. My gut reaction is that Cirt can do it and do fine at it. The challenge is Cirt doing fine at the quiet margins. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The purported policy violations are fairly minor. Who else has been de-sysopped for regular editing that didn't involve admin tools and didn't result in a block? This seems so disproportionate as to call into question Off2riorob's judgment and perspective.   Will Beback  talk  02:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Opposed. There is no evidence of the misuse of tools. - BorisG (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Opposed. I have not seen any evidence presented that Cirt has abused administrative tools. I believe him to be one of the two or three finest, most honest and reliable closing administrators at AfD. This seems clearly a punitive effort which has no logical relationship to the charges against him. Carrite (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Qualified support. The alleged editing problems, if true, represent (at the very least) a serious misunderstanding of key WP policies. Although we don't have a mandatory review / recall standard or procedure for admins, I think it's proper to note that a candidate who exhibited issues like these during an RfA would almost certainly not pass today. I see no real problem with someone in this situation continuing to do tasks like closing AfD's, where admins are clearly limited to implementing an already-established consensus. I am less enthusiastic about such a person doing AE, because (as I understand the process) a certain amount of judgment is required in order to decide whether a given request meets the criteria, and an editor with problems such as those under discussion might not be trusted to have that kind of judgment. I definitely would not want someone with trouble distinguishing good-faith content disagreements from disruptive editing giving out blocks for edit warring. Assuming the issues being brought up against Cirt are supported, I would be OK with her keeping the mop if (and only if) she is allowed to use it only within carefully circumscribed bounds. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Strongly opposed. Where there is no abuse of the tools, desysopping should occur only in instances of gross and egregious abuse of community trust. Cirt is hardly the first admin to edit from a POV on a particular subject. He would, unless I'm mistaken, be the first to have his bit twiddled for actions that had nothing to do with adminship. Throwaway85 (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Followup to my earlier comment: If (and obviously only if) ArbCom decides that Cirt should be banned from editing certain types of articles, it seems reasonable to me that said ban should include a ban on Cirt exercising admin functions in connection with articles she is not permitted to edit. Perhaps a limitation like this will suffice to address people's concerns without needing to take the admittedly drastic step of desysopping. And, clearly, anything like this should happen only if it is decided that Cirt's behaviour has in fact been such as to warrant any remedies at all. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Richwales, this is not an issue, since he cannot (and does not) take administrative action on any topic where he is involved, and he is unlikely to be restricted from editing article space in a topic where he is uninvolved. - BorisG (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. It seems to me that while Cirt's edits as cited in evidence are suspect to say the least, he should not be desysopped for it. After reviewing the links given by Jayen and Off2riorob I noticed that a lot weren't too bad in breaking policy. Some were bad though (e.g. the youtube videos) and as a trend these actions are not something befitting an Admin. There is no evidence of misused admin tools and from my cursory look of his history it seems like he uses them very well, especially in closing AfDs. I think that the sanctions proposed except for this are sufficient to prevent this disagreement from arising again. Chris (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Further related violations

User:Cirt is reminded that when editing new topic areas he is expected to edit within WP:Policy and guidelines at all times - this is especially the case in regard to highly experienced WP:Users, holding advanced permissions such as WP:Admin. If similar policy violations occur (especially WP:NPOV and WP:BLP as detailed out on the evidence page) theArbitration committee will consider a motion for a project wide ban, starting with one month for a first violation, then three months for a second violation and six months for a third.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed - Off2riorob (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminded is enough. Threats of sanctions are unnecessary. - BorisG (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-starter; WP:IAR allows editors to not follow policies/guidelined (with good reasons, and with mutual consent between the active editors, of course). The proposed restriction would force Cirt (and by implication all Wikipedians), to stick to some strict interpretation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP that they may not feel is appropriate when they are editing.

If other editors later see that some articles have been editited in a way that they think is not consistent with their editing philosophy, they can fix the problem as they think is appropriate; they should WP:AGF about the intention of the original editor(s), agree to disagree about possible disagreements about editing philosophy and settle any current editing disputes on the basis of consensus. They should not purge the original editor(s) from Misplaced Pages. Count Iblis (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Example 2

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 3

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: